Here Comes Everybody

 There are lots of blogs on the subject of learning 2.0. They tend to focus on what is theoretically or pedagogically desirable in the New Learning, as well as the new understandings that emerge from our experience of learning on the network. This discussion remains theoretical because mainstream business and education  have been slow to embrace the New Learning. Examples of these theories in an integrated format, in practice  are not common.

Except, I would argue, with a couple of exceptions. I believe  ChinesePod and SpanishPod are actually rather good case studies of putting these concepts to work.

 An integrated learning 2.0 scenario

There is a general agreement about the need for learning environments, learnscapes, or learning eco-systems, that enable participation, collaboration, and user-input, etc. The central organizing principle should, of course, be the network, with all the attendant network qualities and the right social software. The key thing about a network is that everything is connected to everything else. Connecting the people and all the bits enables the sharing, the discussion, the dissemination of good learning practices, as well as the self-expression, the debate, and all the other things that make human learning possible. 

In this scenario, the learners are necessarily in control because networks  break down hierarchies. The role of the instructor (or practitioner) is that of modelling and demonstrating, rather than as arbiters or controllers.  

Learners are then free to select content on a self-service basis, and at the times that they, themselves choose, preferably from an input-rich environment, with a variety of ways to consume it. (Learning is multi-dimensional.) It also needs to be self-directed and happen through direct experience and personal decisions, rather than through instruction and vicarious decisions.

Within this adaptive, de-centralized, recursive, and exploratory learning environment, content needs to be cognitive, and engaging. An inductive approach that allows learners to participate, to discover meaning, to reflect, and identify patterns, takes precedence over lectures because learning is individualistic, and subjective. All the while, members of the community can communicate on various issues, and threads to pursue their own goals with practitioners and other learners.

 Sounds familiar

In fact, the scenario I’ve just described is pretty much how ChinesePod and SpanishPod actually work. Almost every feature I mentioned exists there. The approach we took has certainly been organic. Lesson topics and other resources (and therefore the curriculum) are generally informed by learner request and not complete without their comments. The environment is dynamic, evolving in collaboration with the needs and behaviors of the learners. Ultimately it functions as an online community of practice.

 Other features include the use of modular learning objects (check) that can be tagged (check) and delivered as an RSS flow (check) when needed (check). This means that the learning is just in time (check) rather than just in case. Meanwhile, the future apparently will be learner-centered (check) immersive (check) mobile (check) democratic (check)  designed for the medium (check) and the environment in which it will be consumed (check). All these elements exist on ChinesePod.

I guess I’ve made my point.

 Was all of this planned in advance? No, it was not. It emerged as we went along  - which is consistent with what network learning theories, such as connectivism, might suggest. 

 ChinesePod and social networks

I believe ChinesePod points to a distinctive type of social network, and one that will become more prevalent once it becomes more widely recognized for what it is. I would distinguish (for the sake of argument) three types of social network. First, you have Facebook, Linked In, etc, where the social object is to connect with people and serve some social purpose (finding a job, making new friends, etc).  

The second type of social network is what we might call the content communities. The social object here involves sharing information, photos, music, or something else - examples, Delicious, Flckr,  Youtube, etc. As with the first type of social network, you register, get your own page, and get on with it.

I believe we may define a third category -  the social network as an online Community of Practice that exploits the learning-friendly qualities of the network. (This can extend beyond the internet itself, for example, into the mobile context.)  The social object is learning a language, a process that requires very high levels of participation.  

The Big Bang of 2005  yielded Facebook, Youtube, Flickr, and so on. In terms of learning, the results were more patchy.  The ’small pieces loosely joined’ approach has led to new ideas about personal learning environments in the manner that Stephen Downes has described. That has more to do with managing for the individual. I would argue, however, that we are the clearest example of an integrated approach to what the participative web has to offer in learning in specific subject area. I beleive the community of practice is a powerful way to do that.

Our goal now is to set the standards for the online language learning industry. This is just the beginning, but I hope we’ve taken the first steps.  

 Ken Carroll

 The subject of online language learning has been in the news, particularly since Live Mocha received funding some weeks ago. Yesterday, my company, Praxis Language  appeared alongside them, in the New York Times (the same story appeared in the International Herald Tribune today). 

There is a deeper undercurrent to this story. It concerns how the future of online language learning is being played out.  After a career in the industry I know change when I see it: After a somewhat slow start, Moore’s Law and the internet are starting to rattle its foundations. This will result in change - change in how, where, and with whom we learn languages - and it will reach all corners of the industry, including those who may now feel immune to it, Berlitz, Rosetta Stone, the language schools, and universities.  

I have no idea who will dominate the new landscape, but some things strike me as inevitable. Web 2.0 has yielded  new learning insights and practices that will almost certainly be widely adopted going forward. The whole nature v nurture (technology v pedagogy) debate has been opened up again and it is proving fertile ground for innovation. I cannot imagine, for example, any online learning system that failed to use RSS going forward. On ChinesePod and SpanishPod, that technology has created a whole new conception of  what a lesson is. RSS turns the daily lessons into learning events, something you don’t want to miss, rather than a chore you have to do, and a place where your community of learners hang out an work to the same beat.  (This is also described as pull v push by Charlie Gillette in this excellent article.) This type of learning as an event was impossible just a few years ago, but I believe it will prove itself indispensable for any future developers.

And while we’re on the subject of community, it’s clear that social software, though still in its infancy,  has a huge role to play in learning.  Learning alone from a black box will no longer cut it,  because now there is an alternative: the community of practice, with a clear social object, a purposethat everyone in the learning ecosystem shares. 

Things are going to look different, three years from now. Mark my words!

I also refer you to this excellent overview of some interesting trends/developments by my friend, the excellent  Dr Curt Bonk. 

Ken Carroll

By looking at speech ‘beyond the level of the sentence’, discourse analysis reveals some of the conventions that underlie it. Speakers use conversational structures to engage listeners, create cohesion,  and facilitate comprehension. As we talk, we subtly adjust the lexis and structures in accordance with roles, status, and context. There’s a lot going on under the surface of your average chat.

Most conversations have a beginning, middle, and an end (with lots of subtle movements in between).  We signpost to each other where we are in the process through appropriate phrases, from, What’s up?, to I’d better be getting back to the office, for example. We indicate turn-taking through pitch, pauses, and discourse markers (well, anyway, right then, ok, etc).

Meanwhile, speaker roles determine why this exchange would  be expected between a doctor and  patient, but not between a commuter and ticket collector at Waterloo Station.

 Thank you so much.

Not at all.

Conversational structures can frame relationship roles and status, as Deborah Tannen has argued for some time. (Framing roles inappropriately can send very odd signals.)

After recording 400 podcasts and 200 mobile lessons (or learning objects) it is very clear to me that each medium is  a new form of discourse with different rules of engagement.

Engagement is a good word here because without it there is very little learning. There are things that work and things that don’t, and content designers definitely work in the R&D department of new media. Clive Shepherd has done a tremendous job in laying the groundwork for this, with his 60 Minute Masters, while people like Tom Kuhlmann , Cammy Bean and others also explore  the subject.

I believe discourse analysis offers helpful insights for the new media instructional designer, by helping to make explicit the structures, strategies, and cohesive devices that work for them. There’s no space here to go into every aspect of this but let’s take a look at roles and relationships as they might be framed in an audio-based learning object.

The first question we ask inevitably concerns the whom:  Whose problem am I solving? and How do we frame the relationsip?  We tend to open lessons with propositions or calls to action to indicate a direct message for the listener and signal their involvement.  It’s important  that we project a sense of authority on the subject but without framing it in a negative way. (Getting the human element right makes a big difference. Contrast the ChinesePod approach with that of a traditional textbook. I think it’s the parasocial dimension that explains ChinesePod’s stunning success.)

There are many other dimensions and many other questions. One project we’re working on is a set of 90 second learning objects for Nokia cellphones. This might sound incredibly short but by boiling the medium down to its essentials and describing the elements of that discourse format, I beleive we are finding ways to make them effective. Questions like How do we organize/structure the conversations? Is there cohesion? How do we convey the movement of the conversation? etc, are all truly relevant when you only have 90 seconds to make something happen. Here is an example of a prototype lesson that targets young Chinese managers on the subject of time management. (It comes with a transcript, plus translation, etc, on the learner’s handset.) 

More on this nascent subject later. In the meantime, you thoughts are requested.

 Ken Carroll